On Thu, 05 Feb 2015 16:43:48 +0100
Antonio Trande wrote:
>
> Is it practicable the packaging of this script for Firefox/Icecat on
> Fedora?
> Are there problems as it is a script?
>
Hi,
I believe that you (or someone else) would have to package Greasemonkey
addon first as it is needed to run t
Hi folks,
as you may already know, MongoDB is now licensed under SSPLv1[1] as of
October 16.
Since SSPLv1 doesn't meet Fedora's license requirements, I'd like to
start a conversation
on MongoDB's future in Fedora.
Theoretically, we could maintain versions prior to October 15,
however, the new lic
Hi Everyone,
Since I've just got sponzored - thank you jskarvad :) - it's time for me to
introduce myself. So here's my attempt :) .
I've discovered Linux, programming and the whole open source world about
7-8 years ago when I was at high school and immediately fell in love with
it. Even though I
Hi all,
I intend to remove minizip from the zlib package and replace it with a more
maintained fork [1][2]. To preserve backwards compatibility and ease the
transition on maintainers of dependent packages, the idea is to provide
minizip-compat and minizip-compat-devel packages in the zlib minizip
>
> Hmm, this sounds rather complicated and risky.
> Do I get this right that postgresql will bundle a copy of libpq,
> and a separate unbundled libpq will be provided?
>
> Why not just include a specific Requires on a specific version of
> libpq? (Maybe something like
> Requires:libpq(%_isa)>=x.
There will be a soname bump from libminizip.so.2.5 to libminizip.so.3.0.
Change will be build in a side-tag f34-build-side-37055.
--
Patrik Novotný
Associate Software Engineer
Red Hat
panov...@redhat.com
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproj
I'd advocate strongly against a compat package.
The whole point of the change is to push the move to the new autoconf
upstream release. Not the availability of autoconf 2.71 to the end user.
For that, we would do much better with providing the end users with a
modular release, I think.
As for the
